Tweet
Hi, I am a (happy) Passmark Performance test user. In my copy of Performance Test, I can select the drive I want to use for the Disk Test subsection of Performance Test.
That was very cool back when I was trying to convince myself that SSDs were ready for prime time, and worth the investment. (thanks Passmark)
Having gotten my primary servers tuned up, I have turned my attention to NAS. Immediately I noticed the NAS products (multi-bay boxes attached via ethernet) are certainly not created equal.
I'm not one to go shooting in the dark so I'm thinking about what I want to measure as I compare the various NAS products and their options/configurations, etc.
My first thought was to run the tried and true Passmark tests, but alas, the Disk Test only allows me to select directly attached drives. Shucks, that would have been so easy !
I can argue both ways regarding the correctness of the decision to limit the Disk Test to direct-attached drives. I might also argue that a meaningful NAS test would be accomplished via multiple network clients versus from a single server. (i.e. the Performance/Disk test is simply the wrong approach)
I recognize Passmark and this forum as thought leaders in the testing field, thus,
I would be curious to know if the forum feels like including remote drives as a "choice" in the Disk Test makes sense.
I understand a request of this sort is tangential to the purpose for which Performance Test serves so well- global baseline comparison. Given that, what other approach might one take to accomplish baseline comparisons for remote disks, specifically NAS boxes?
I'm going to suggest, certain NAS devices are fast enough (assuming a great GPU) to accomodate all but the most demanding post production rendering, CAD, games, etc.
But which ones? (smile)
Thanks for your indugence. Any and all discussion would be greatly appreciated.
That was very cool back when I was trying to convince myself that SSDs were ready for prime time, and worth the investment. (thanks Passmark)
Having gotten my primary servers tuned up, I have turned my attention to NAS. Immediately I noticed the NAS products (multi-bay boxes attached via ethernet) are certainly not created equal.
I'm not one to go shooting in the dark so I'm thinking about what I want to measure as I compare the various NAS products and their options/configurations, etc.
My first thought was to run the tried and true Passmark tests, but alas, the Disk Test only allows me to select directly attached drives. Shucks, that would have been so easy !
I can argue both ways regarding the correctness of the decision to limit the Disk Test to direct-attached drives. I might also argue that a meaningful NAS test would be accomplished via multiple network clients versus from a single server. (i.e. the Performance/Disk test is simply the wrong approach)
I recognize Passmark and this forum as thought leaders in the testing field, thus,
I would be curious to know if the forum feels like including remote drives as a "choice" in the Disk Test makes sense.
I understand a request of this sort is tangential to the purpose for which Performance Test serves so well- global baseline comparison. Given that, what other approach might one take to accomplish baseline comparisons for remote disks, specifically NAS boxes?
I'm going to suggest, certain NAS devices are fast enough (assuming a great GPU) to accomodate all but the most demanding post production rendering, CAD, games, etc.
But which ones? (smile)
Thanks for your indugence. Any and all discussion would be greatly appreciated.
Comment